A law bill introduced in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday seeks to abolish the Patriot Act, ban Uncle Sam from forcing backdoors into technology, and safeguard whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.
Ever since Snowden leaked top-secret files detailing the NSA and GCHQ's global surveillance of innocent people, there have …

Sadly, I believe you are right. It probably won't make it to the floor for vote and die in committee but the two who introduced it show that at least someone is trying. It's remotely possible that they had some discussions with their fellows and maybe it will be passed. The scary part is what would be passed to replace it down the road a bit.

Re: I wish them luck"

Me too, but... You heard it here first. This stuff is here to stay. And this might truly be a case of "better the devil you [sort of] know" than anything new and more hidden.

Sometimes I wish I weren't so jaded and cynical about politics but, every time I try to be more optimistic about it I notice the self-serving, snake-in-the-grass types drawn to it like moths to the flame. I suppose I should take comfort that I am at least still paying attention and haven't given in to apathy.

"it also needs a related bill introduced in the Senate"

No it doesn't, it does need to pass the house and then the bill automatically goes to the Senate. Question is whether the bill will go to the Intelligence Committee (and quickly be strangled by the empire-builders there) or go to the Judiciary Committee (where it will have more of a chance to get to the Senate floor for a vote).

I need to adult more

I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

There is some good news in that Ted Cruz (First Republican to declare his candidacy for President) actually made a point of discussing the roll-back of surveillance of the American population in his announcement. It definitely raised my appreciation for Cruz. Though I still think he's a reckless bomb-thrower, he might get my vote if he is on the same ballot with Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton now. I'm against those two because I think dynastic politics is very bad in general for democracy.

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

Oh boy, sounds like you still believe in it all. To be VERY honest, that is good because I'm so skeptical and negative about politics that somebody has to balance it out However, I question 1 statement of yours, because don't forget...

"It definitely raised my appreciation for Cruz."

... he reads a script, written by somebody else. So if you get bored (like really bored), maybe send an appreciation letter to his writer(s). Wouldn't that sort of be great, sending appreciation letters to the writers instead of the candidates :-) "I love what you did there, what is going to happen to Cruz in Act 2? Kirk out." (In all seriousness, see if you can get them to write in a space ship...I'd vote for that craziness).

Re:... he reads a script

The Big 0? Yeah, he does. Cruz, not so much. He may employ speech writers to snazz up the main speech, but when he fields questions, that's all him. He didn't get to be successful by not knowing what he thinks about issues.

Yeah, I saw him speak about 10 years ago. Knew he was an up and comer.

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

Yeah , an NSA scan of your recent phone calls indicated you were likely to vote against their favorite candidate, so there has been a technical glitch with your voter's registration card. Another one will be ready for you in two weeks. Pity the election is only one week away.

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

You have never even heard what Cruz had to say because you are too busy criticizing him. As I have heard and said many times You're not listening if your mouth is moving.

The excellent speech he gave at Liberty College announcing his candidacy was done without any teleprompter. Cruz was in the top of his class at Harvard and many have said he is an excellent debater. Though there are speechwriters at all levels of politics, this wasn't your typical situation.

In comparison, YOUR president has never made a public speech without a teleprompter and he sounds like a space cadet when he doesn't use one.

You liberals have proposed little to nothing of value in eight years while bankrupting this country by printing money and buying votes and blocked the legislation of any conservatives. Now shutup and let someone else have a turn. They couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

By the way Trevor, the tabloid scandal sheet called the Daily News is about as good a reference as the Daily Mail in Britain. Almost 90% of the regions in New York State (Outside of the dirty City) think that Cuomo is the biggest liar and cheat since the days of Tamany Hall. The voices of the conservative populace in New York State are being shouted over by the rats in the City. Those same regions have vowed to overthrow his dictates, including the Un Safe Act and the lifetime welfare benefits and vote buying package for the rats.

Go ahead and cherry pick some politicians comments to fit your views, I can do the same.

Re: The Dream Nightmare, but not as you may know it or how IT tells you the Realities are

Thank you! I haven't had as entertaining a read (in this genre) since trying to thrash through some of the OWS literature back in the day. This one is better written than most of the OWS pieces, though.

For some reason it reminded me of Lyndon LaRouche and also of the Natural Law Party.

Re: The Dream Nightmare, but not as you may know it or how IT tells you the Realities are

"The EFF is not supporting the bill"

Of course not, Google isn't. I really don't follow the triumphs or failures of the EFF, but I do know that people have been stating that the EFF is just a fake front between 2 parties with no real footing on either side. They've been stating that before the Google touch, so I don't see them proving any nay sayers wrong any time soon with Google as their horse master. Again, I don't follow them really, but over the last few years I've been reading what the EFF supports (but not in detail) and what Google supports (but not in detail), and they are apparently the same thing (at least on the surface).

Of course, the law proposed, despite surface appeal, is unnecessary, as there already is a Fourth Amendment which needs no laws to defend it, just judges willing to throw out laws which overstep the protection it offers. We also used to have a free press for whistleblowers to turn to...

Fourth Amendment

...the law proposed, ...is unnecessary, as there already is a Fourth Amendment which needs no laws to defend it...

Repealing the current law gets the job done more rapidly and is a much surer way of doing so. The process involved in challenging a law's constitutionality can be much more drawn out than the legislative process and sometimes ends with bad laws being upheld because they are in fact constitutional even if they stink.

The bill won't pass as it is, although it does not seem impossible that some of its provisions might find their way into other legislation. As it stands, it does not seem to be very professionally drafted in some respects. Specific mention of E. O. 12333, for instance, seems unwise, as executive orders have the effect of specifying implementation details and procedures for laws rather than the other way around. Again, specification of "contractor" in Section 9 is simply incorrect - Edward Snowden was not a contractor, but an employee of a contractor, Booz Allen. The apparent intent would be to deal with complaints originated by employees of contractors, as described in 50 USC 3033, referenced in Section 9(a)(4) of the proposed act.

Interestingly, 50 USC 3033(k)(5) contains procedures for agencies and for government and contractor employees to follow in reporting "urgent concerns", including violations of the law, about the conduct of intelligence activities. These procedures explicitly permit a government or contractor employee who has made a report to his agency inspector general to report that fact (although not, immediately, the details of the complaint) to a member of either legislative intelligence committee or their staff. I have seen no statements to indicate that Mr. Snowden took advantage of them.

I cannot say much about your first paragraph, don't have time to read up on all that, but your second paragraph is hilarious, thanks for the good laugh!

Again, for the joy:

>Interestingly, 50 USC 3033(k)(5) contains procedures for agencies and for government and contractor employees to follow in reporting "urgent concerns", including violations of the law, about the conduct of intelligence activities. These procedures explicitly permit a government or contractor employee who has made a report to his agency inspector general to report that fact (although not, immediately, the details of the complaint) to a member of either legislative intelligence committee or their staff. I have seen no statements to indicate that Mr. Snowden took advantage of them.

Do you really think Mr. Snowden had survived if he had reported his concerns ? I am sure that, when a police officer breaks the law you go to the nearest police office and report it, right ? I dunno where you live, but in France, you simply do not do that ... if you do, you will learn pretty quickly that it is a very good idea to move to another region at the very least 300 miles away ...

Everybody knew, including all members of the committee you mention, what was happening - "we are fighting a war, after all" is what you hear all day long. The same war the party was fighting in Orwell's master piece - invisible "brotherhood" ...

Rolling Over in their Graves

Re: "Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize."

It never ceases to amaze me how the presumed opinion and behavior of the founding fathers is still invoked at pretty much every opportunity. IIRC even SCO argued that the founding fathers would be on their side about copyright.

Even if there were a remote grain of truth in that, is there anyone who would like to return to the US of 1800ish? Hey, the founding fathers did not abolish slavery, so they must have approved! Fortunately we have evolved from the original blueprints.

The Founding Fathers

Re: Rolling Over in their Graves

Even if there were a remote grain of truth in that, is there anyone who would like to return to the US of 1800ish? Hey, the founding fathers did not abolish slavery, so they must have approved! Fortunately we have evolved from the original blueprints. ..... fpx

Methinks the overwhelmingly accurate evidence is that so very few have significantly evolved from the original blueprints, fpx, and that permits the few to do as they wish with a relative impunity and virtually effective immunity from any accountability for their crass and/or crash actions.

The difficulty and valid worry for those few who are stuck and invested in a maintenance of the status quo rut, is that others willingly leave them behind to wallow in destruction of their reactions to the new events which freely shared intelligence and uncovered secrets expose and driver with ab fab fabless product placements/novel presentations with compelling imaginative narratives.

Such though is the simply complex true nature of future reality creation for media hosting and global brainwashing. It would be naive to not realise that it is what the likes of a GCHQ are all about nowadays, and quite stupid of such an entity to try to deny it and pretend otherwise.

Re: Rolling Over in their Graves

- remember the government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way round as is the case today.

The mindset for this probably started changing back in the '70's when various news companies reported on the so-called Tax Freedom Day which is still reported as the day we start working for ourselves instead of the government. There are those who think we should be doing this every day and every new infringement/law pushes us a bit closer.

Re: Rolling Over in their Graves

No, the Founding Fathers of America did not support slavery. However, they recognized that they would need the help of the slave states to win a war of independence (clearly, that much was shown true in the war that followed). The abolition of slavery would have to wait, but there was never any doubt that it was going to happen in the minds of the founders. They were prolific writers; their thoughts on nearly any issue are now a part of the historical record.

Keep in mind, also, that before the independence of America, the slaveowners were all Englishmen, acting with the full support of their King. Slavery came to the shores of what is now the USA under the Union Jack; it was abolished (at great cost in blood and fortune) under the Stars and Stripes.

Thomas Jefferson is often cited as a "slave owner." He never intended to be; he inherited them, and the laws of Virginia prohibited a person in debt (which he was) from freeing them.

When this bill fails to pass...

.. then all those who signed it, their families, their employees, their business contacts and everyone they went to school with, are going to be placed on a very special watch list. The existence of which will be forever denied.

It's all true!

So, NSA spying, giant government conspiracy to cover it up, corrupt officials... almost everything that crazy dude I knew in college said has turned out to be true. What if he was RIGHT about the tinfoil hats too?